Hi Jean, hopefully, I now have the time to finish at24 for good. Do you think it can go through the next merge window?
> > As I said, my thought there is to make it safe for most > > developers to just say "24c32" (or whatever) and have a > > sane default ... while making sure that they *always* have > > a way to set chips up to be readonly, or provide a better > > page size (if they need better bulk write speeds). > > I agree on the principle. But the question remains: what is a sane > default in this context? Using the smallest page size amongst commonly > used EEPROM models? Using the smallest page size amongst known models? > Using the smallest possible page size (that would be 1 byte for all > EEPROM sizes as I understand it)? This 3rd possibility would probably > be no better than defaulting to read-only, as the write performance > would be so bad that every developer would specify custom platform data. Hmm, I tend to set all page_sizes to 1. It is a bit awkward to write "double check those parameters" and then provide values you cannot be absolutely sure of. Still, a minimal write-possibility may come in handy, I think. I agree with Jean here, that it will be so slow, that developers surely will create their own platform_devices. All the best, Wolfram -- Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
